Epitome

Vorkosigan:Do you have any serious responses to any of the issues raised?

Of course I do. Just because you don't see the humor in your argument doesn't mean I'm not serious.

I do take the subject matter seriously... it's just sometimes things strike me as funny.

We were not discussing religious people doing good things but deriving beneficial effects from being part of a religious group.

I have been talking about both doing good things, not doing bad things AND deriving beneficial effects...

So not only was your comment asinine, it didn't even address the topic at hand.

I did address the topic at hand... And this type of insult is why I try not to take discussions here too seriously. Otherwise instead of laughing at it, I might get my feelings hurt when you resort to insults rather than being civil...

The benefits derive from being part of a community, not being religious.

I've asked for examples of such non-religious communities and their benefits and besides one small community, the Fellowship of Reason, I get only theories, antedotes and insistance that it's not the religion...

I support what the FOR is doing... I've learned a bit from reading what they do... If I wasn't Christian, I'd probably want to be part of it... but they don't take my kind.

I wish there were more secularists who would be part of such communities. Maybe then you'd see how difficult it really is!! Anyway, claiming you could do it better is empty without the proof.

I'm not saying you can't, btw. Just that there is no proof that the benefits to society will be as great under secular humanistic morality as they are under one based on a belief in a moral authority outside of themself.

(notice please, I'm not focusing it on a specific religion like Christianity...)

But religion constructs communities in peculiar ways -- by forming an evil "other" who exists in opposition to the "good" community.

Can you explain what you mean? Because I think your generalizing in a specific way. SOME religions do this, but not most.

As Steve Weinberg once wittily put it,

Does that mean he has nothing serious to say?

good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things, that takes religion. As we have seen.

Actually, it is kind of witty... But I don't subscribe to people being 'good' per se... If someone does bad thngs they are bad, even if they are part of a religion. But that's another discussion...


Your second line is even dumber, since we were not discussing why communities do bad things, but why religious communities do bad things.

Thanks again for the insult... but once again you missed my point. While I'm tempted to say it, I do realize that it doesn't make you dumb, just not focused or open to the point I was making.

People are selfish and slow to change. Even those that WANT to be moral have difficulty changing habits or facing their faults. When people get in a community under leadership of someone who is unable or unwilling to guide them towards the morality they say they believe in or worse, a leader able to twist that belief into something it's not, you get the sorts of abuses you are referring to.

My point is that this is a matter of human nature and would most likely happen in a secular setting as well.

We have no proof that it would or wouldn't because there are so few communities of secular humanists united for the purpose of creating a moral community.

So what I'm saying short and sweet is:

Studies have shown people active in religious communities derive benefits and do good things more so than those not active in religious communities.

If this is a matter of their community and not their religion, you're going to have to provide more convincing proof than pointing to the evil done in the name of religion.

*L*

In a way you could SAY I'm saying:

If people in a community do good things it's because of their religion (belief in a moral authority outside of themselves).

If people in a religious community do bad things it's because of their human nature.


But it's much more complicated than that, of course.

So your answer so far consists of two non sequitors, which you dimly thought passed for wit. Any time you want to engage in substantive discourse, you can start by seriously dealing with the issues raised in my last two posts.

I stand by the points I've made and elaborated on in this post. Had I more time last night I may have gotten into it more...

Even if you aren't crazy about how I made my points, I find it ironic for you to say I'm not engaging in substantive discourse when you resorted to insults.

I'm going away for a bit, but I'll be back. I am enjoying learning how secular humanists think about such things. I said before that I'm here for a mental exercise... but I do have a sincere interest in those who seek morality outside of a belief in God or gods...

Epitome

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan o you have any serious responses to any of the issues raised?

Of course I do. Just because you don't see the humor in your argument doesn't mean I'm not serious.

Don't be silly. You confused a non sequitor with wit, and clearly did not understand what anyone was saying. Not my fault you don't understand what you are saying...

I have been talking about both doing good things, not doing bad things AND deriving beneficial effects...

Not with me you weren't. I was responding specifically to the studies you raised...

I did address the topic at hand... And this type of insult is why I try not to take discussions here too seriously. Otherwise instead of laughing at it, I might get my feelings hurt when you resort to insults rather than being civil...

I was civil, until you decided to make what you thought was a joke, but was actually a huge misunderstanding on your part. It irritated me that I put up two long and substantive posts, and got only gibberish in return. Sorry for getting irritated.

I've asked for examples of such non-religious communities and their benefits and besides one small community, the Fellowship of Reason, I get only theories, antedotes and insistance that it's not the religion...

No examples needed. What you need to show is that there is something special about religious communities as opposed to other kinds of communities. The "community effect" is well known. <a href="http://www.pwhce.ca/isol.htm" target="_blank">See, for example, this study on isolation</a>

"Studies have found rates of loneliness in older populations to range from 20% - 60%, and many researchers have noted associations with poor health and well being."

Note that phrase "many researchers..."

I wish there were more secularists who would be part of such communities. Maybe then you'd see how difficult it really is!! Anyway, claiming you could do it better is empty without the proof.

I never said we could do it better. In fact, atheists tend to be ornery and independent, and forming communities is often difficult for us. There is no "without proof" here. It's just annoying to have to come up with studies to show what is a well-accepted sociological fact. What you are really doing is exposing your own ignorance.

I'm not saying you can't, btw. Just that there is no proof that the benefits to society will be as great under secular humanistic morality as they are under one based on a belief in a moral authority outside of themself.

I just put up reams of discussion of this. Again, see the crime statistics and other statistics of social well-being for more religious vs. less religious nations. There's a huge difference. For almost every social indicator, Europe, which is less religious, blows away the more religious US.

(notice please, I'm not focusing it on a specific religion like Christianity...)

No need. I suspect there are decent religions, but certainly none of the Abrahamic ones qualify. Maybe the Ba'hai-s....

Can you explain what you mean? Because I think your generalizing in a specific way. SOME religions do this, but not most.

True, you are right. The Abrahamic religions do this, the Buddhist ones do not normally. This is why the body count is so high for Christianity and Islam, and much lower for the Buddhists.

As Steve Weinberg once wittily put it,
Does that mean he has nothing serious to say?

No, but it means that when you attempt to say something serious with wit, you should first understand what it is you are being witty about. Which you most certainly did not.

Your second line is even dumber, since we were not discussing why communities do bad things, but why religious communities do bad things.

Thanks again for the insult... but once again you missed my point. While I'm tempted to say it, I do realize that it doesn't make you dumb, just not focused or open to the point I was making.

You weren't making any point. Period. You only thought you were. Big difference.

Also, your attempt at sarcastic humor was basically an insulting appraisal of me as too dumb to see the irony in my own arguments.

People are selfish and slow to change. Even those that WANT to be moral have difficulty changing habits or facing their faults. When people get in a community under leadership of someone who is unable or unwilling to guide them towards the morality they say they believe in or worse, a leader able to twist that belief into something it's not, you get the sorts of abuses you are referring to.

No, the destructive behavior of religions like Christianity, where moral authority lies outside of self, stem from that very arrangement. In one sense Christianity's problem is not doctrine per se, but structure. It has the same problem that Facism, Nationalism, Islam, Communism and all other authority systems do: it locates moral authority outside the believer's own mind. That is why it has racked up such impressive body counts, like those other systems of thought. Those Christian denominations, such as Quakerism, that have given up this type of thinking, are atypically nonviolent.

My point is that this is a matter of human nature and would most likely happen in a secular setting as well.

Certainly, if there was some thought system like Christianity, such as Facism or Communism, that had the same set of self/other dichotomies and moral authority systems. But significantly, while Christians, Muslims, Communists, etc, execute non-believers with gleeful abandon, atheists have never executed people for not being atheists. The Communists, alas for you, executed atheists who weren't Communists. The issue for them was always communism.....

We have no proof that it would or wouldn't because there are so few communities of secular humanists united for the purpose of creating a moral community.

None, in fact. Humanists don't unite to form "moral communities." The whole point of being a thinking person rather than a Statebot, Marxbot, Godbot or Allahbot is that one gives up the right to tell others how to live their lives.

Studies have shown people active in religious communities derive benefits and do good things more so than those not active in religious communities.

Those studies, as I showed above, are all suspect for various reasons. The idea that people do more for their communities if they are religious remains unproven. Just look at infidels. Almost all the long-timers here have long records of community service. In fact, you are conversing with a former US Peace Corps volunteer.

If this is a matter of their community and not their religion, you're going to have to provide more convincing proof than pointing to the evil done in the name of religion.

I'm sorry. Did you read either of the posts I put up? You must not have. First you have to show that the studies are valid. You still have not told me where Gartner's study was published and who peer-reviewed it. The other studies are either invalid or, as in Kark's, not on point.

If people in a community do good things it's because of their religion (belief in a moral authority outside of themselves).

Too vague. What community? Where? And not every religion believes in a moral authority outside of self.

One test of this might be to look at highly religious societies such as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the US, and compare them to kless religous ones such as Hong Kong, Europe, for levels of community service and volunteerism.

If people in a religious community do bad things it's because of their human nature.

So religion never causes people to do bad things... So the massive killings in the name of various gods that have gone on over the centuries actually had nothing to do with religion.

Right.

I stand by the points I've made and elaborated on in this post. Had I more time last night I may have gotten into it more

"Standing by" means nothing. Please answer some of the questions. "Standing by" is generally done when one has nothing to say.

Even if you aren't crazy about how I made my points, I find it ironic for you to say I'm not engaging in substantive discourse when you resorted to insults.

If you hadn't attempt to respond to two very substantive posts with nonsense, you would not have gotten slapped down. And I did not insult you, but termed your response "dumb" and "asinine." This last response of yours was at least reasonable, even though it did not address any of the issues I raised.

When you get back, please come back with some valid studies, to start with. We can then look at what conclusions can be drawn.

As I said above, one test of this might be to look at highly religious societies such as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the US, and compare them to kless religous ones such as Hong Kong, Europe, for levels of community service and volunteerism. Why don't you do that? You might be able to come to some substantive conclusions. For example, how does volunteerism in Iran or Pakistan compare to that in England or the Netherlands?

Vorkosigan

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Starboy

Vorkosigan, your responses are way over Epitome's head. Yet another example of a Christian that has no idea of what they are talking about.

Smart Christians understand that their beliefs are founded on faith and there is no point in defending them with reason. The rest appear to be morons.

Starboy

dangin

Epitome, you wanted me to let you know when I am laughing at you. I'm still laughing at you for the whole "thinking with your heart bit", and for every single fact and argument presented in the previous three pages which you conveniently ignore in your little responses. The things you ignore show the holes you cannot close in your worldview.

Naturalism is so sensible and in fact simple. Why must you travel such mental distances to protect the supernatural. You can live without it, all the people arguing against you are, and their arguments are all stronger. If god really loved you the way you claim, wouldn't he have given you better arguments to work with?

Stephen T-B

We come across this so often: Religion (usually in the form of Christianity when the subject is raised on these boards) makes people good; human nature makes them bad. When a Christian behaves badly - and we had that most impressive list posted earlier on in this thread of Christians being involved in massive corporate crimes - Christianity has nothing to do with it.
One is entitled to ask what’s the point, in that case, of Christianity?
(We overlook, for the purposes of this little discussion, the bad things which Religion does encourage or has encouraged people to do, like stoning unmarried mothers to death, burning down medical clinics where abortions are carried out, torturing heretics etc.)

(Religious arguments are so slippery: over in Rants, Raves and Preachings there’s a thread I started called Ed’s Little Difficulty where Ipetrich has been hammering away at Ed for about 170 posts, and has nailed his arguments about 3,500 times.
Or would have done in any normal discussion, but nailing down an Ed argument is like trying to nail a pool of mercury.)

Religious practices, rites, rituals and dogmas are things an individual responds to and embraces because they provide a psychological reward. There is a perceived or actual pay off, and “being a good and kind person ” may or may not contribute to it. When it doesn’t, you find a Christian / Muslim / Jew or whatever who is as anti-social and unpleasant as any non Christian / Muslim / Jew etc can be.
The reason is that among religious communities and individuals is a wide divergence of emphasis because religious texts - even when they are as specific as the Koran - have ambiguities which permit or require interpretation, and every interpretation is perceived by those who provided it and those who accept it as embodying divine morality.
Epitome, because of his Faith, will never be able to acknowledge that the potential here for evil consequences is as great as it is for good ones.
Religion, therefore, can be a foundation for moral behaviour, just as it can also be a foundation for distinctly immoral behaviour.

brighid

I would agree, but also add that it is NO better a moral foundation than a non-religious moral foundation. It has also been clearly demonstrated to be a foundation for evil and immoral behavior.

Brighid

ImGod

Neither do I. You're crazy. You speak to beings that exist only in your head. The followers of your cult are trying to add religion to our government in the recent past and now and call it the historical basis of our government. I don't subscribe to political correctness or legislation based on someone's "feelings" or government reinterpretation based on the most popular cult following.

Practice your religion as is was meant to be practiced, quietly, in actions not words, and in private between you and the voices in your head and we'll all be fine.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: ImGod ]</p>

Epitome

I honestly don't have time to sift through all of the insults and 'tude to find the real discussion here... So I'm going to have to pick through the posts to the posters that seem sincere.

Besides, if someone thinks I'm crazy or stupid, I doubt they should care to discuss what I think anyway...




brighid,(Religious foundation)... is NO better a moral foundation than a non-religious moral foundation.

Unfortunately there are precious few communities based on non-religious moral foundation to even do a study on this, so we simply don't know if that statement is true.

It is theory. Not saying it's implausible, only that we can only make an educated guess on it...

It has also been clearly demonstrated to be a foundation for evil and immoral behavior.

The vast majority of religions hold moral tenants very similar to secular morals and the vast majority of religions shun all types of evil.

However, to your point, people involved in religion have used it to justify evil and immoral behavior.

But don't people do the same with race, patriotism and all sorts of other rationalizations and idealogies? Unfortunately it is very common for people turn all sorts of positive things into reasons to kill, mame, destroy, etc.

Maybe we can focus more if we lay aside the community aspect and the potential for evil within a community... lets evaluate individual moral responsibility.

Perhaps you can help me phrase the real question here:

Is the individual conscience just as good as an outside moral authority?

I think it can be to some people... but we're trying to figure out what is better for most people. So maybe the question is really:

Are humans just as capable of being moral when the moral authority is only their own conscience as they are when they feel they must answer to something outside of themselves?

I'll wait to see where this goes before I offer any thoughts. (plus I want to think on it more)

Epitome

ImGod

I never intended to paint you as stupid. A standard cult member maybe. It's just you said you didn't subscribe to political correctness so I thought I would show you christianity without the political correctness. I will be politically correct in the future and refer to you as christian (if of course you actually are one. I've based my assumption on the content of your previous posts).

I agree with your assesment that legislation should not be based political correctness or "feelings". Your faith in god falls under a personal "feelings" category in my opinion and should not be included as part of our government. That includes some form of legislated morality.

brighid

Well then Epitome, according to your theory (if I understand it correctly) the more religious a society is the more moral it should be?

Correct? So, the most fundamentalist, strict societies that follow the letter of the religious law to the T would be the best societies to live in? The lack of comparison as you say (you are woefully ignorant of the European social systems) lets just focus on the most vs. the least religious societies to see what sort of moral standards they set. I hope you will indulge me for the sake of your argument. Lets set out to prove if you are correct.

Would you classify Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria as countries that derive the vast majority of their moral and legal values directly from laws given down by a God? We could then say Sweden being on the least religious end of the spectrum?

So the most moral societies should logically sustain the best social system under which the greatest number of people would thrive, live and enjoy personal peace and freedom? Yes??

So – let’s compare – answering as if you were a Fundamentalist Christian or Muslim (depending on the question) and how a not so religious Swede (or even a liberal, Christian American) would answer these questions:

What so you to the morality of female genital mutilation as the common practice amongst these religious people to prevent women from having sex before marriage? If you had a daughter, and your God demanded such a thing would you guarantee that she underwent said procedure to insure her purity?

What so you to the moral implications of Honor Killings? Such as women or girls who are murdered by their families because they refuse an arranged marriage or they are raped (such as they didn’t cry out loudly enough to be heard)?

What moral position do you take on stoning adulterers, drunkards, thieves, and other sinners/criminals in a public square without the benefit of balanced trial?

What is your moral position about the killing of men and women who are alleged to be witches?

Do you take the moral position that divorced women should not be allowed to remarry because of Biblical mandate? What about the manner of dress women should observe while in Church?

Do you require that your wife submit her intellect and authority to you?

Should women work outside of the home or are they morally obligated to be only wife and mother, or if they do not choose this path perhaps a nun? Does your wife work?

What is your position on genocide?

What is your position on the actions of the historical Church in regard to Judaism and Jews – such that the Jew is a devil, a Christ killer, liar, has been put in pogroms, internment camps and been historically discriminated against and murdered by Church mandate?

What is your position on the treatment of slaves and how does that agree with Scripture?

Do you spoil your child by sparing the rod?

Do you work on the Sabbath?

What punishment should those who use God’s name in vain receive?

Do you possess any graven images in your home, such as which find Biblical prohibition as found in the 10 commandments?

What historical examples are you aware of regarding Christian/Catholic theocracies and the status of human rights within that society?

What is more favorable: a nation run by a singular figure head, appointed by God or a nation run democratically?

Does Christianity favor a communist, socialist, facist, or capitalistic economic system? Please provide examples.

Brighid